HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 2493

BYRepresentatives H. Sommers, Todd, McLean, Schoon, Jacobsen, Crane, Betrozoff, Winsley, O'Brien, P. King and Rasmussen; by request of Department of Community Development

Providing for the preservation of historic sites.

House Committe on State Government

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (9)

      Signed by Representatives Todd, Chair; Anderson, Vice Chair; McLean, Ranking Republican Member; R. Fisher, Hankins, R. King, Morris, O'Brien and Silver.

House Staff:Barbara McLain (786-7135)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON STATE GOVERNMENT JANUARY 30, 1990

BACKGROUND:

In 1972, the voters approved Referendum 28 allowing for the sale of general obligation bonds to purchase, preserve, and develop recreation areas in the state.  A portion of the funds were also to be used to acquire and preserve historic sites and buildings. Over a period of years, about $1.3 million was spent on historic preservation projects.  The Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation in the Department of Community Development (DCD) has authority to establish grants-in-aid programs for historic site preservation, but the proceeds from the Referendum 28 bond sales have since been depleted.

The 1987-89 capital budget established and appropriated $600,000 for the Endangered Landmarks Preservation Fund, to be used by DCD to temporarily purchase historic buildings at risk of being destroyed or altered and then resell the buildings with the proceeds returned to the fund.  A matching amount from a non-state source had to accompany any such purchase.

The Endangered Landmarks Preservation Fund has been used only once, to purchase buildings at Fort Lawton in Discovery Park, Seattle. Use of the fund raised a number of legal questions about the authority of DCD to purchase property, particularly private property.  The 1989-91 capital budget reappropriates money for the fund, but stipulates that unless an endangered landmarks preservation program is established in statute by July 1, 1990, the appropriation authority will cease.

SUMMARY:

Existing authority of the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (Department of Community Development) to establish a program of matching grants-in-aid is expanded to include authority for a program of loans to public agencies, public or private organizations, or individuals to be used for preservation of properties that are significant to history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.

Once a biennium, the director of the office is to conduct a survey of historic sites to identify those that are endangered and rank them in importance.  The director will use the following criteria for grant or loan assistance:

            oHistoric significance of the site;

            oGeographic distribution of sites across the state;

            oFactors threatening the site, such as demolition or deterioration;

            oProportion of local resources committed to the project; and

            oAccessibility or visual prominence of the site to the public.

To qualify for a loan or grant, the property must be protected by an historic preservation easement that obligates owners to preserve the site's historic character for a specified number of years.

The endangered landmarks preservation fund is established in the custody of the state treasurer.  The Department of Community Development will deposit in the fund all proceeds from the repayment of historic preservation loans.  The fund is to be used only for historic preservation loans or grants-in-aid and is subject to allotment procedures, but not to appropriation.

Fiscal Note:      No Impact.

Effective Date:The bill takes effect on July 1, 1990.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Don Krupp, Department of Community Development; Jake Thomas, State Historic Preservation Officer; Joan Curtis, Steilacoom Historical Association; and Maxine Mathias, Steilacoom Town Council.

House Committee - Testified Against:      No one.

House Committee - Testimony For:    Historic preservation is an essential community development tool for deteriorating urban centers, rural areas desiring heritage tourism, and communities trying to revitalize a sense of identity and heritage.  For example, Steilacoom has been able to receive matching grants to restore structures from the 1850s; state funds provided momentum for volunteers and community leaders to join to retain the town's historic image.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None.